Six Months Left: California's AB 2777 Window for Adult Sexual-Assault Claims Closes December 31, 2026

A deadline is approaching that matters to thousands of Californians: December 31, 2026. That is the day the filing window created by AB 2777 — the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act — closes for many adult sexual-assault claims that would otherwise already be time-barred.

What AB 2777 actually did

In 2022 the Legislature passed AB 2777, which did two big things for people who were sexually assaulted as adults. First, it confirmed a ten-year statute of limitations for adult sexual-assault claims under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16. Second — and this is the part with the deadline — it revived many claims that had already lapsed, for assaults occurring on or after January 1, 2009, and gave survivors until December 31, 2026 to file them in court.

The statute also reaches the institutions behind the abuser. Where an entity — a company, an agency, an institution — engaged in a cover-up of prior sexual assault allegations, AB 2777 exposes that entity to the revived claim as well. That is why it is called the Cover-Up Accountability Act.

Why this matters for prison and institutional abuse survivors

Much of the sexual abuse our office is contacted about happened inside institutions — including California's women's prisons, CCWF in Chowchilla and CIW in Chino, where the U.S. Department of Justice opened a federal civil rights investigation into staff sexual abuse in September 2024. Survivors of abuse in custody were adults when it happened, which means the adult deadlines — § 340.16 and AB 2777 — are usually the ones that control.

If the abuse happened between 2009 and roughly 2016, there is a real chance the ordinary deadline has already run — and the AB 2777 revival window is the reason the claim can still be brought today. When the window closes, that path closes with it.

“Filed” means filed in court

The December 31, 2026 deadline is not a deadline to think about it, to call a lawyer, or to send a letter. It is a deadline for a complaint to be on file in a California court. Working backward from there: a serious institutional-abuse case needs interviews, records, corroboration, and careful drafting before filing. That takes weeks to months. A survivor who calls in December may find that responsible counsel simply cannot investigate and file in time.

If any part of you is weighing whether to come forward, the practical advice is simple: have the confidential conversation now, while there is still time to do it right.

What about after 2026?

Three things survive the window closing. First, § 340.16's ten-year limit keeps applying to more recent assaults. Second, a separate, narrower window created by AB 250 — focused on institutional cover-up claims — extends filing options into 2027 for some survivors. Third, none of this affects childhood sexual-abuse claims, which follow their own rules under CCP § 340.1 (generally to age 40, or five years from discovery).

But no one should plan around the later windows. Eligibility under each is technical, and the safest claim is the one filed while the broadest window is open.

A word about how we work

We are not a high-volume sign-up firm. We review claims carefully, decline matters we are not the right fit for, and move forward only with cases we are prepared to litigate seriously. Speaking with our office is confidential — your identity, your story, and the fact that you contacted us are not shared outside our office without your authorization. Courts also routinely allow survivors to proceed under a Doe pseudonym in these cases.

If you would like to talk

You can reach our office at (559) 439-7500, or start with the dedicated pages for these claims:

California Women’s Prison Sexual Abuse Claims (CCWF, CIW) →

There is no obligation, no pressure, and no fee unless we accept your case and recover for you.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Whether any deadline — including AB 2777's — applies to a specific claim depends on the facts, and exceptions run in both directions. The only way to know is a case-specific review.